Arcania was the worst. It sucks as a self entitled game and it does not even compare to any of the Gothic games (this is actually why I sayd Arcania and not G4). ME 2 is second for me. It's too little "rpg" and too much "action".

I think the reason Mass Effect 2 is so high on the list, is that most people here don't think of it as much of an RPG - and I agree with that.

But it's kinda misleading, because it's established as an RPG (as much as anything) - and it doesn't really matter if people personally agree with the genre definition. In fact, I don't think it makes sense to rate "Best/Worst RPG" based on how much any individual - or group of individuals - thinks it belongs in the genre. I just go by how it's being marketed and labelled by the developers - and they should be in charge of what to call their own game. Not that I even know what Bioware calls it, but it's certainly enough of an RPG to me, to qualify for the genre - but then, I don't need much for that to be true.

Personally, I think genres are only really useful as a guide to the kind of experience you might expect, and nothing more. What really matters is whether it's a good game or not. But that's me.

As a game, I think Mass Effect 2 is pretty good - and I think it's kinda unfair to have it be 2nd worst RPG.

But, maybe people really think it's that bad as a game - overall - I just doubt it.

Alpha Protocol for me is the second best RPG of the last year after Obsidian's masterpiece Fallout New Vegas. The game has it flaws, but is a lot better than the highly praised Mass Effect 2, which I think is the second letdown of Bioware after the awful Dragon age: Origins.

Originally Posted by zakhal
There should be a new genre for the modern rpg. Somthing like action defined high dialogue game.

To me, ME2 falls somewhere in the "cinematic shooter" category. Sure, it contains a lot of dialogue, but I found that it only served to enhance the "cinematic" part of the experience, not the "role-playing" aspect. It certainly wasn't my cup of tea. I didn't enjoy it as an RPG, and neither did I enjoy it as a shooter.

As for the rest of the games, I admit I didn't play a whole lot of them. I missed out on playing most of the games since I still didn't have a decent PC. Sure, I could play the 360 versions of AP or F:NV, but I'm sort of sick of that. I want to play these games on my PC. Luckily my brother recently bought himself a high-end gaming PC, and thus I inherited his powerhouse Laptop that he only used for gaming. Now I can finally play some of those must-play RPGs that I've been missing out on for the last 5 years or so. I'm currently enjoying The Witcher a LOT. Next on the list are Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, Drakensang (both of 'em, just picked up TRoT here in Belgium), AP and New Vegas.

I realize this is just a fun poll to spark conversation, and I think it's a great idea overall. I just think it should be named "Most Disappointing" or "Biggest Turkey" or "The Golden Turd Award" or something like that instead of "Worst RPG"

Originally Posted by zakhal
There should be a new genre for the modern rpg. Somthing like action defined high dialogue game.

There should be a whole new set of genres. In many RPGs you just play a pre-defined role (rather like an actor that's been handed a script). In the ones that let you play any role you want, the vast majority of people just play themselves. So why define a genre according to a feature most people ignore?

Or better yet, why have genres at all? Do retail stores still sort their shelves by them? The ones I've seen lately just sort them alphabetically (and put games starting with "The" in the T's <sigh>). For online stores with no real shelves at all, they could do SO much more. Those could take several factors (action level, thinking level, average length of game, system requirements…) and let you do searches on the ones you consider important.

Myself I regret a lot not have been able to play Arcania because Casual RPG would be totally for me when picked at right time of my gaming mood.

But the few I have seen before a bug blocking me is the dream introduction. With plain stupid feast clicking fights (but it's a dream and I bet the game is quite different after), an awful voice acting, a quite bad writing just plain boring and unpleasant, zero exploration quality (but again it's a dream and I could hope better after).

I couldn't play more of the game because of a bug blocking me right after the end of the dream. But from this introduction, it's not casual RPG it's awful poorly done RPG, the worst RPG introduction of all time. Yeah just the introduction, no comment about the full game I couldn't try until I hope my next computer.

Arcania: Gothic 4 wasn't such a bad game. It was very disappointing, but not bad. I'd pick Alpha Protocol as the worst RPG of 2010, because if Arcania was an average game with poor RPG elements, Alpha Protocol was a poor game with average RPG elements.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus
Arcania: Gothic 4 wasn't such a bad game. It was very disappointing, but not bad. I'd pick Alpha Protocol as the worst RPG of 2010, because if Arcania was an average game with poor RPG elements, Alpha Protocol was a poor game with average RPG elements.

I'd agree with that.

Except I wasn't disappointed with Arcania. In fact, I expected utter crap, and I got a mildly diverting game that I had fun with for a while.

As usual this sort of list is just silly. Many of the "worst" ones were only really "bad" in that people either expected something different (Arcania), had overblown expectations (many), or weren't "pure" enough (ME2). I doubt many, if any, of us played the truly atrocious games that were produced because they died ignominious and deserved deaths off in some back alley.

Note that that doesn't excuse the people who produced them from doing doofus things like slapping "Gothic" on Arcania.